The company had successfully appealed against a prohibition notice relating to its arrangements for working at height. By the time of the prohibition notice, it had implemented a plan satisfactory to the inspector.
Held: The tribunal had not focussed properly on the facts as at the inspector faced them, and had not give adequate regard to his expertise. He had been faced with a need for the supervision of the work. His notice should be amended accordingly, but in view of the arrangements, the notice should be cancelled.
 EWHC 2086 (Admin)
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Work at Height Regulations 2005
Cited – Railtrack Plc v Smallwood QBD 16-Feb-2001
It was not incorrect for an inspector to proceed to issue a prohibition notice to the rail operator, with regard to the use of a signal set, which had been deemed unsafe, even where the operator had given formal undertakings with regard to its’ use. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.372674